To extend on the whole FLAW of this and any other arguement supporting the idea of "virtual worlds" and its "citizens" having rights in the REAL WORLD you need to understand (yay polysci6a!) that to be citizen of a country that country has to have SOVEREIGNTY over its borders... what defines a border you say? REAL WORLD LAND MASS. Video games can never have that, thus there is no feasibility EVER of what you pondering from happening.
A potential to solution to wiretaps (even fiber) is the idea of pressurized conduits... if someone breaks the conduit to put on a tap you'll know.... but thats all very neat for the 3 letter acronyms and paranoid troopers.
Here I must confess compared to other Uni's UCI has pretty damn cool ResNet. The use policy is a bit draconian (yeah they shut off your port without asking and regulary portscan student computers without their knowledge but nothing a good ipfilter setup won't prevent *grin*) They don't restrict bandwidth (amazing isn't it?) like other UC's and the ResNet admin is pretty knowledgeable albiet one of those ex-military types who believes in policy over practicality and good security but nobodies perfect eh? One of these days I'll need to convince these guys that they need a serious security audit done (and oh god do they ever).
Its 2:30am and I'm wondering wtf I'm replying to this....
"This premise is based on the fact that the Microsoft coders are paid good money to play by the rules and code efficiently and securely, whatever the cost in time and headaches. Hence, the higher overall quality of Windows programs coded in C/C++."
Fallacy. What supporting evidence proves that paying good money == good code? Where do you prove (even inductively) that MS coders (or ANY non-OSS coders) play by the rules, code efficently and securely... you _can't_ if you _CAN NOT_ see the code, you can't prove this. And that is a hasty generalization to end with, claiming "Windows programs" are higher quality... all windows programs? Yikes. Please people, don't defend Microsoft like this, it only makes you look dumber. Don't defend any commercial software with these arguements.... and on that note, don't defend any OSS software with the converse of this.
"Okay this premise IS due to the fact that Linux is free. Because of this, the Linux coders have little time to code, and so they do a slapdash job and label it "Beta 1." All they really want is for their creation to work, not necessarily to work well. Hell, they don't care if the program doesn't even do what it was designed for, they only go back to the drawing board if it crashes (Case in point: GNOME and the Linux kernels above 2.4.XX)."
FUD. And why exclude all OSS coders (you wouldn't claim BSD coders, who code also for apps and such things that run under linux, solaris, schubertnix etc) put in that same poor effort.. and uh.. where, why and how are you proving this? are you a Linux developer? How else would you know they have this mentality? or is this your personal opinion, which seems incredibly edumacated and researched here. GNOME and Linux 2.4.x, uhm.. those are NOT listed as stable, they are not ment to be stable... have you ever heard of BETA software? yeah you know sometimes software has to be tested before it can be released.
"The same rules apply here; the more funding, the better the chance of stability/function relevance."
OpenBSD. nuff said. I'm running it on 3 or my 5 personal machines. If you are claiming that NT is more stable/secure etc because it has more money.. well.. your logic doesn't quite work, methinks your common sense got disconnected with your thought process cause you've drifted off to clueless land.
I'm a regular and a well known patron of #e, as I cannot speak for the channel, I'd say that opinions vary, some people are pro-gnome some are pro-kde, some are impartial, I am. While I use kde over gnome for various reasons of speed and stability, the arguement is illrelevent. We at #e could not be classified as pro or anti GNOME, its opinion based.
Slashdot Mirror
To extend on the whole FLAW of this and any other arguement supporting the idea of "virtual worlds" and its "citizens" having rights in the REAL WORLD you need to understand (yay polysci6a!) that to be citizen of a country that country has to have SOVEREIGNTY over its borders... what defines a border you say? REAL WORLD LAND MASS. Video games can never have that, thus there is no feasibility EVER of what you pondering from happening.
Thank you, drive through.
-- schubert
A potential to solution to wiretaps (even fiber) is the idea of pressurized conduits... if someone breaks the conduit to put on a tap you'll know. ... but thats all very neat for the 3 letter acronyms and paranoid troopers.
Here I must confess compared to other Uni's UCI has pretty damn cool ResNet. The use policy is a bit draconian (yeah they shut off your port without asking and regulary portscan student computers without their knowledge but nothing a good ipfilter setup won't prevent *grin*) They don't restrict bandwidth (amazing isn't it?) like other UC's and the ResNet admin is pretty knowledgeable albiet one of those ex-military types who believes in policy over practicality and good security but nobodies perfect eh? One of these days I'll need to convince these guys that they need a serious security audit done (and oh god do they ever).
He was referring to another site's page not /. did you not even bother to read his comment? +2?
Its 2:30am and I'm wondering wtf I'm replying to this....
... and on that note, don't defend any OSS software with the converse of this.
"This premise is based on the fact that the Microsoft coders are paid good money to play by the rules and code efficiently and securely, whatever the cost in time and headaches. Hence, the higher overall quality of Windows programs coded in C/C++."
Fallacy. What supporting evidence proves that paying good money == good code? Where do you prove (even inductively) that MS coders (or ANY non-OSS coders) play by the rules, code efficently and securely... you _can't_ if you _CAN NOT_ see the code, you can't prove this. And that is a hasty generalization to end with, claiming "Windows programs" are higher quality... all windows programs? Yikes. Please people, don't defend Microsoft like this, it only makes you look dumber. Don't defend any commercial software with these arguements.
"Okay this premise IS due to the fact that Linux is free. Because of this, the Linux coders have little time to code, and so they do a slapdash job and label it "Beta 1." All they really want is for their creation to work, not necessarily to work well. Hell, they don't care if the program doesn't even do what it was designed for, they only go back to the drawing board if it crashes (Case in point: GNOME and the Linux kernels above 2.4.XX)."
FUD. And why exclude all OSS coders (you wouldn't claim BSD coders, who code also for apps and such things that run under linux, solaris, schubertnix etc) put in that same poor effort.. and uh.. where, why and how are you proving this? are you a Linux developer? How else would you know they have this mentality? or is this your personal opinion, which seems incredibly edumacated and researched here. GNOME and Linux 2.4.x, uhm.. those are NOT listed as stable, they are not ment to be stable... have you ever heard of BETA software? yeah you know sometimes software has to be tested before it can be released.
"The same rules apply here; the more funding, the better the chance of stability/function relevance."
OpenBSD. nuff said. I'm running it on 3 or my 5 personal machines. If you are claiming that NT is more stable/secure etc because it has more money.. well.. your logic doesn't quite work, methinks your common sense got disconnected with your thought process cause you've drifted off to clueless land.
I'm a regular and a well known patron of #e, as I cannot speak for the channel, I'd say that opinions vary, some people are pro-gnome some are pro-kde, some are impartial, I am. While I use kde over gnome for various reasons of speed and stability, the arguement is illrelevent. We at #e could not be classified as pro or anti GNOME, its opinion based.